There are no Durants there. It's just one slot, but I'm sure you get the point.

I get that people prefer wins in the present, but that comes at a cost. If you'd prefer to be the Bucks, be a scrappy team that squeaks into the playoffs here and there but never makes it past the second round, then that's your thing. But it's not mine. I want to watch a team playing for a deep playoff run, with a chance to win the championship. Difference of opinion. I'm Willing to wait for that.

Someday they might fix the draft system but until then high lottery picks are the best bet for turning this franchise around. A first or second pick in this year's draft is a lot different than a 5th or lower. I don't want them to stop trying either, but I want them to lose. Because when I look at the roster as constructed, I see a lot of players that were acquired based on potential and who are all struggling to consistently live up to it. Consistency is the hardest thing to master in the NBA, and being consistently elite is nearly impossible. And that's usually the difference between a first or second overall and a 5th: guys like MKG and Davis who bring huge positives every time they step on the floor, and guys like Barnes and Jones, who have the potential to but are still trying to figure out how.

I counted five franchise altering players in the last 13 year and one HOF...what's so bad about the tenth pick?

The irony is that the team does not have the tank mentality at all.....and neither does it's coach. Anyone who thinks that BC did not select the filler for this team (1 yr contracts) with the view to "sabotage" the season is being naive or not paying attention to the available f/as who were available when players like Carter and Butler etc were signed. This team in my view has achieved it's current record honestly so, in practical terms does it really matter that a "tank nation" exists who in reality will outlive many of the players on this team (as far as being on the team or in the league). This existential-like nation as well will NOT exist next year.

As a few others stated, the players certainly are not tanking. And why would they? If they intentionally lose a game, or try to tank the rest of the season then they won't have a job next year. I do believe as well that near the end of a season, guys like gary forbes will step up for this reason, and we will steal some games from better opponents, such as last night because our guys are desperate to show they belong.

You see this with the Leafs every year, but this year, struggle at the start, win near the end as guys are playing harder to keep a spot on the roster, and playoff teams looking forward.

That being said, I don't care where we draft, just as long as we make the right choice at whichever spot, and build these players up for next year.

I'm not sure if I like 5 years though, as it might be too long. For instance, if team is bottom-5 for 3 years, but then improves significantly in year 4, they'd still likely have a top pick because of the 4 year average, then again possibly in year 5 too. That would give them huge advantage come year 6, when the rolling 5-year average finally eliminates one of their bottom-dwelling seasons. I think 3 years is more reasonable, to benefit the truly bad teams while they are still bad.

I might even look at doing a slightly weighted average over the 3-5 years, giving slightly heavier weighting to the more recent seasons. That way, whether it's a 3 or 5 year average, the lottery odds distribution will decrease as a bad team increases (ie: thanks to good draft picks) and increase as a good team is on the decline.

Adding my two ideas together, I would look at it like this:

3 SEASONS AGO
- 2 balls for missing playoffs
- 1 ball for making playoffs but out first round
- 0 balls for making it beyond first round

2 SEASONS AGO
- 3 balls for missing playoffs
- 1 ball for making playoffs but out first round
- 0 balls for making it beyond first round

1 SEASON AGO (the one that just ended)
- 4 balls for missing playoffs
- 1 ball for making playoffs but out first round
- 0 balls for making it beyond first round

I was skeptical at first, but I actually think there is some merit to the idea in the first article, with a little tweaking. I didn't like the second article.

I have seen a few of the ideas, espeically in the summer and last year.

The problem with using the averages, is what about if a team suddenly becomes bad?
Ex Cleveland when Lebron left (and us to some point)
When Bron left they had a brutal team, but since they had a great team for the past 3 years they cant start to rebuild right away?
Another two teams are Boston and Portland
Portland had a fairly solid team for the past few years, but decided to blow up and move on. Why should they be delayed from moving on becuase they were a mediocre team?
Or boston, last 3 years they have done really well, but this year they may not make the playoffs, and probably will not next year. We cant they begin to rebuild now?

The first idea rewards crappy management as much or more than the current system. Isn't that part of the issue we are trying to correct: rewarding bad management? Don't see how this does that.

The second proposal suffers from any of these proposals that try to quantify wins/losses. First, the schedule isn't balanced. Conferences and divisions are very different. The order you play teams could potentially have a massive impact on your draft position and that makes no sense. What about factoring in home/away dynamics? What about a team that suffers dramatic injuries? They are doubly punished? Also, in this case, the switch at the trade deadline offers some perverse incentives for teams to tank early (perhaps sitting out players with "injuries") only to miraculously return a day after the trade deadline.

Again, the current system is, as far as I can tell, an imperfect solution but it is the best one anybody has come up with.

The first idea rewards crappy management as much or more than the current system. Isn't that part of the issue we are trying to correct: rewarding bad management? Don't see how this does that.

The second proposal suffers from any of these proposals that try to quantify wins/losses. First, the schedule isn't balanced. Conferences and divisions are very different. The order you play teams could potentially have a massive impact on your draft position and that makes no sense. What about factoring in home/away dynamics? What about a team that suffers dramatic injuries? They are doubly punished? Also, in this case, the switch at the trade deadline offers some perverse incentives for teams to tank early (perhaps sitting out players with "injuries") only to miraculously return a day after the trade deadline.

Again, the current system is, as far as I can tell, an imperfect solution but it is the best one anybody has come up with.

I think you're half right. The first example does reward bad management, but helps teams that are stuck in the dreaded 9th spot. I think it's much harder to put together a contender in four years in your record is 41-41 than it is if your record is 10-72. Plus if it makes no difference in lottery balls if your team wins 10 games in a year or 41, you would see a more competitive NBA.

As for the Cleveland example, yeah if your franchise player leaves you're hooped, but they just had a bunch of 60 + win seasons. And then they get the #1 overall pick after one bad year? Sorry, I don't feel bad for them.

All lottery teams receive the same amount of ping pong balls, if you want to miss the playoffs for an equal chance at 1 and 14, go ahead, explain that to ticket buyers.

Getting a great draft pick does not make a franchise, even getting a bunch of top picks is no guarantee you'll pick well, or manage the overall club well, so I am not inclined to believe it creates competitive balance. In fact, it often retards any possible growth in organizations that have forgotten, literally, what it means to be competitive on the court.

Another thing that bothers me is the stacking of rosters with sub par players, when every team should be trying to employ the best in the world in the best league in the world, not Rasual Butler.

I think you're half right. The first example does reward bad management, but helps teams that are stuck in the dreaded 9th spot. I think it's much harder to put together a contender in four years in your record is 41-41 than it is if your record is 10-72. Plus if it makes no difference in lottery balls if your team wins 10 games in a year or 41, you would see a more competitive NBA.

As for the Cleveland example, yeah if your franchise player leaves you're hooped, but they just had a bunch of 60 + win seasons. And then they get the #1 overall pick after one bad year? Sorry, I don't feel bad for them.

Cleveland's pick wasn't #1. I believe that was the Clippers' pick, which was traded to Cleveland. No tweaking of the lottery system will prevent teams from trading picks.

All lottery teams receive the same amount of ping pong balls, if you want to miss the playoffs for an equal chance at 1 and 14, go ahead, explain that to ticket buyers.

Getting a great draft pick does not make a franchise, even getting a bunch of top picks is no guarantee you'll pick well, or manage the overall club well, so I am not inclined to believe it creates competitive balance. In fact, it often retards any possible growth in organizations that have forgotten, literally, what it means to be competitive on the court.

Another thing that bothers me is the stacking of rosters with sub par players, when every team should be trying to employ the best in the world in the best league in the world, not Rasual Butler.

The only way to prevent Rasual Butler-type signings is to contract the league to 16 teams.

The problem here is that, generally speaking, most of teams in the lottery right now are smaller market or less 'desirable' teams.

All the national writers are based in larger markets. They are pushing their agendas because their hometown teams are not getting the Anthony Davis or Brad Beal or MKG or Barnes or Drummond or Robinson i.e. top young talent.

The critical thinking skills of people - writers and fans alike - is deplorable. Look at the teams currently in the playoffs and how they got there, generally speaking it was obtaining a talent via the draft and building from there:

So looking at the 16 teams above, only 3 teams can honestly be said they didn't get their foundation from the lottery (Houston, New York, Indiana). Yes, there were other factors (free agency and trades) but looking at each team, its core is comprised of a lottery pick(s).

The system is fine. The NY writers are bitching because the Knicks have f*cked up a 7 year rebuild in less than a season and they now have no other means of adding highly talented players.

The only way to prevent Rasual Butler-type signings is to contract the league to 16 teams.

There just aren't enough "good" players to fill out all 30 rosters.

If that would become reality you could also see more athletes in highschool and college choosing another sport instead of basketball because of better job opportunities and the Butlers still getting a spot on the team instead of being the waterboy. It's not immune to marketdynamics.

The system is fine. Just take a look at europe where the big franchises poach the small ones for their best players. Now imagine the likes of Chris Bosh leaving their franchises for nothing and move to greener pastures leaving the original franchise to rot. Oh wait...never mind...